Skip to content

CIA Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition – Obama Moves to Conceal Drone Deaths – Evidence: Obama Knew About Fast and Furious – Fabled Enemies Full Documentary

June 22, 2012

Critics of Sustainability Hysteria Slam UN’s Anti-liberty Rio+20 Agenda

Obama Moves To Conceal Drone Death Figures

AG Holder and House GOP May Compromise on “Fast and Furious”

———————————————————————————–

This 9-11 documentary is chocked full of video evidence and information proving a national cover up of the real story.  Please take some time to watch this powerful video and consider forwarding it to your e-mail lists. 

——————————————————————————–

C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition

June 21, 2012 by legitgov

ShareThis

C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition –State Department authorized $15 million in ‘nonlethal’ aid 21 Jun 2012 A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence officers. The Pentagon continues to fine-tune a range of military options, after a request from President Obama in early March for such contingency planning. Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told senators at that time that the options under review included humanitarian airlifts, aerial surveillance of the Syrian military, and the establishment of a no-fly zone.

————————————————————————————

Video Evidence: Obama Knew About Fast & Furious

  • The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Infowars.com
June 22, 2012

On March 23, 2011, Obama lied to the American people about Operation Fast and Furious. He said that neither he nor Attorney General Holder authorized the effort to arm the drug cartels in Mexico.

Several weeks later, on May 3, Holder lied to Congress. He said he did not know who approved Fast and Furious. He also lied when he said he “probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.”

In fact, as the video below proves, the Obama administration and the Department of Justice were deeply involved in the operation from the start.

During a news conference in March of 2009, Holder’s underling, Deputy Attorney General David Ogden said Obama ordered and Holder expanded “Project Gunrunner” in Mexico as part of the Department of Justice’s Southwest Border Initiative. The project began in 2005 under Bush. Fast and Furious became operational under Project Gunrunner in 2009.

———————————————————————————–

Can The President Rewrite Federal Law by Judge Napolitano

Andrew P. Napolitano / LewRockwell.com

Here we go again. Is the Constitution merely a guideline to be consulted by those it purports to regulate, or is it really the supreme law of the land? If it is just a guideline, then it is meaningless, as it only will be followed by those in government when it is not an obstacle to their purposes. If it is the supreme law of the land, what do we do when one branch of government seizes power from another and the branch that had its power stolen does nothing about it?Late last week, President Obama, fresh from a series of revelations that he kills whomever he pleases in foreign lands, that the U.S. military is actually fighting undeclared wars in Somalia and Yemen, and that the CIA is using cyber warfare – computers – to destabilize innocents in Iran, announced that he has rewritten a small portion of federal immigration law so as to accommodate the needs of young immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and remained here. By establishing new rules governing deportation, rules that Congress declined to enact, the president has usurped the power to write federal law from Congress and commandeered it for himself.

Immigrants should not be used as political pawns by the government. When government does that, it violates the natural law. Our rights come from our humanity, and our humanity comes from God. Our rights are natural and integral to us, and they do not vary by virtue of, and cannot be conditioned upon, the place where our mothers were physically located at the time of our births. Federal law violates the natural law when it interferes with whom you invite to your home or employ in your business or to whom you rent your property or with whom you walk the public sidewalks.

When the government restricts freedom of association based on an immutable characteristic of birth – like race, gender or the place of birth – it is engaging in the same type of decision-making that brought us slavery, Jim Crow and other invidious government discrimination. Regrettably, the feds think they can limit human freedom by quota and by geography. And they have done this for base political reasons.

Along comes the president, and he has decided that he can fix some of our immigration woes by rewriting the laws to his liking. Never mind that the Constitution provides that his job is “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and that “all legislative power” in the federal government has been granted to Congress. He has chosen to bypass Congress and disregard the Constitution. Can he do this?

There is a valid and constitutional argument to be made that the president may refrain from defending and enforcing laws that he believes are palpably and demonstrably unconstitutional. These arguments go back to Thomas Jefferson, who refused to defend or enforce the Alien and Sedition Acts because, by punishing speech, they directly contradicted the First Amendment. Jefferson argued that when a law contradicts the Constitution, the law must give way because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and all other laws are inferior and must conform to it. This argument is itself now universally accepted jurisprudence – except by President Obama, who recently and inexplicably questioned the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to invalidate the Affordable Health Care Act on the basis that it is unconstitutional.

Nevertheless, there is no intellectually honest argument to be made that the president can pick and choose which laws to enforce based on his personal preferences. And it is a profound violation of the Constitution for the president to engage in rewriting the laws. That’s what he has done here. He has rewritten federal law.

Only Congress can lay down specifics such as in order to avoid deportation and qualify for a two-year work visa, one must have entered the U.S. prior to age 16 and possess a valid American high school diploma or be a military veteran, as the president now requires. By altering the law in this manner – by constructing the requirements the government will impose – the president has violated his oath to enforce the laws as they are written. His second responsibility in the Constitution (the first is to defend the Constitution) is to enforce federal laws as Congress has written them – hence the employment of the word “faithfully” in the Constitution – not as he wishes them to be.

Congress should have enacted years ago what the president is now doing on his own, because it is unjust to punish children for the behavior of their parents, and it is unjust to restrict freedom based on the place of birth. But this can be remedied only by Congress. If the president can rewrite federal laws that he doesn’t like, there is no limit to his power. Then, he will not be a president. He will be a king.

———————————————————————————

About these ads
No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 28 other followers

%d bloggers like this: